It looks like the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster is going to bring about a renewed commitment to NASA and space travel. I tend to be skeptical of the need for the program, but merits of the issue aside, it seems the sheer scale of expenditure is left out of the debate. NASA is hardly the largest expenditure in the federal budget, but at $14.199 Billion a year (as of 2001), it’s no small sum. Agencies like the Dept of Education (at $35.748 B) or HUD (at $33.994 B) are considerably more, but these agencies perform many tasks and serve many constituencies. NASA’s mission is simply to send expensive manned craft into space. Others have debunked the notion that the agency provides valuable scientific information - besides, if scientific research were really the goal (and there would be a good argument for beefing up our research), then why does the National Science Foundation receive a paltry $3.696 B? Sure, research doesn’t have the nationalistic symbols ready for televising, but if people are going to balk at every social service expenditure on the budget or at every 1 percent capital gains tax increase (large amount for some people, granted, just not for me), then their oversight of such a big price-tag on the space program seems out of alignment. It may (or may not) be “human nature” to explore the frontier, but nothing in human nature says we need to devote a small, but meaningful chunk of our economic output to the task.
No comments have been added to this post yet.